…and all the evidence pointing towards the obvious, there’s still dumbasses who trust the corrupt cretins in our bought and paid for health care system. They locked people in their homes and called life saving drugs “horse dewormer” just so Big Pharma could make a killing on vaccines that don’t work but does give people heart attacks. All to treat a virus that they funded and created.

A doctor might be doing his job and trying to make you healthy. Or he might be selling you a poison because the company that wants him to sell that poison is giving that doctor kick backs and a luxury yacht. You have no earthly idea which it could be. Lefties managed to make the whole of modern medicine irrelevant just so a couple scumbag executives at big pharma companies could get even more obnoxiously rich.  

All I saw was a rapid fire list of headlines with no dates and very little context. I saw references to NUMEROUS vaccine types and NUMEROUS different companies and NUMEROUS strains of Covid.  
.
Would the COMPLETE stories say something like, "The original vaccine is less effective against the new strain of Covid," something that should be expected? Or does it serve some other purpose to choose a four-word headline that misrepresents to true state of affairs with, "Vaccine is not effective!"?
.
I don't rely on twitter for reliable news or factual information. Twitter is a place for entertainment.

Are you still getting boosted imp?

Willy has it backwards, again. For DECADES, "lefties" have been trying to STRENGTHEN the laws and regulations regarding what drug companies and their drug reps ("detail men", now "detail fashion models" or "detail cheer leaders") can do to promote their products. "Righties" have tried to block such rules and regs.  Righties want Drug Reps and doctors to be free to do what they want. The Prescription Drug Marketing act of 1987 did not address what "detail men" could do.
.
It used to be that "detail men" had some sort of science or medical background, even if just a BS. Starting in the 1980s - 1990s (after Reagans Rx Drug Marketing Act of 1987), it was shown (data) that attractive young woman with perky personalities and other perky attributes made the best sales reps. Seriously: college cheer leaders had the right attitude and skills to "sell" and convince docs to Rx her company's products.  
.
Your football team only has 10 players, team equipment only provides sneakers and no cleats, ... Your drug is not as good as the competitor product, it causes harmful side effects ... "RAH! RAH! REE! Kick 'em in the knee! GooooOOOOOOOO DRUGS!" is exactly what a lot of drugs need. And it works.
.
But Willy is right that prescribers can be generously enriched by drug companies for Rx-ing their products. And the companies keep track and know exactly who is Rx-ing what and in what quantities. Write more Rx's and get a free trip to Hawaii for "a medical conference." And maybe divorce your wife and marry the cute, young, cheery Drug Rep.
.
If this is truly a concern of Willy, he should question the candidates on their positions and he will usually find that it is the "lefties" that want such kickbacks and other marketing schemes and manipulation stopped.  
.
Not specifically on Willy's topic, but the Dems have made progress getting Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharma, NOT the Reps.

I avoid social media like the plague that it is. I only look at twitter if I am "asked" to with a link.  

Nobel winner Milton Friedman long ago argued that delays in drug innovation kill more people than are protected by the delays.  
.
However that does not excuse the government lying about the effectiveness of drugs, and especially not mandating their use.  There should never be a vaccine mandate.  Ever.  
.
Let people choose their own medical care.  

Have you got a reference to Friedman's argument? I'd like to see the data behind it.  
.
Case by case, an "argument" can be made that it is the DRUG companies lie about the effectiveness of drugs. They provide PROCESSED data to the FDA and ask them to evaluate their conclusions and approve a drug for use. The drug companies hire experts to massage the data to make the strongest case to get approval.  
.
"If we leave out people who are left handed, the data looks better. Let's ask the FDA for approval for righties only and let the clinicians use it off-label for lefties."  
.
Am I remembering this case correctly? Claritin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loratadine The DrugCo proved it was an antihistamine. Then, they proved that it was non-sedating at low doses. It got approved and they were allowed to advertise it as the only non-sedating antihistamine.  The problem was that very few people stuck to the low dose and used higher doses (or multiple pills) to get relief of their symptoms ... but also experienced drowsiness. THAT was all on the DrugCo and their marketing dept, not the FDA.  
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescription-for-profit.html?pagewanted=all' target=_blank>http://web.archive.org/web/20150929130135/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescription-for-profit.html?pagewanted=all
The Claritin Effect; Prescription for Profit.
.
"... my new allergist handed me a week's supply of Claritin, also made by Schering-Plough. Claritin was, and still is, the most frequently dispensed drug sample in the United States, part of the nearly $8 billion worth of free drug samples that pharmaceutical companies distribute to doctors annually. I had seen the ads on TV -- who hadn't? I figured I'd give it a try. ..."
.
"So I went home and tried it. The little white pill was easy to swallow and had to be taken only once a day. There was just one problem: it didn't work. It didn't relieve my runny nose and red-rimmed, gunked-up eyes. When I told my allergist, he didn't seem particularly surprised. Only about 30 to 40 percent of his patients, he said, found the drug helpful.  ..."
.
"Claritin has been singled out as a prime example of greed by the American pharmaceutical industry, notably last summer by Al Gore during his presidential campaign, and there has been a constant stream of negative press about Schering-Plough's efforts to get the basic patent on Claritin extended beyond its 2002 expiration. ..."
.
"When it was his turn to speak, Straus engaged in a little bureaucratic soft-shoe, complimenting the Schering team's presentations as ''a tough act to follow.'' Then he tried to demolish the heart of Schering's application. Straus didn't doubt that loratadine worked as an antihistamine, he said; he just doubted that it worked at the 10-milligram dose. In fact, at one point he claimed that ''10 milligrams is not very different than placebo clinically.'' The reason the dose was so low, he argued, is that evidence of sedation began to crop up at higher, more effective doses. ..."
.
Read the rest yourself, if interested. It's pretty interesting.

The "liberalize the FDA" field is actually pretty huge.